An Innovative Phase I Trial Design Allowing for the Identification of Multiple Potential Maximum Tolerated Doses with Combination Therapy of Targeted Agents

Treatment for cancer often involves combination therapies used both in medical practice and clinical trials. Korn and Simon listed three reasons for the utility of combinations: 1) biochemical synergism, 2) differential susceptibility of tumor cells to different agents, and 3) higher achievable dose intensity by exploiting non-overlapping toxicities to the host. Even if the toxicity profile of each agent of a given combination is known, the toxicity profile of the agents used in combination must be established. Thus, caution is required when designing and evaluating trials with combination therapies. Traditional clinical design is based on the consideration of a single drug. However, a trial of drugs in combination requires a dose-selection procedure that is vastly different than that needed for a single-drug trial. When two drugs are combined in a phase I trial, an important trial objective is to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). The MTD is defined as the dose level below the dose at which two of six patients experience drug-related dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). In phase I trials that combine two agents, more than one MTD generally exists, although all are rarely determined. For example, there may be an MTD that includes high doses of drug A with lower doses of drug B, another one for high doses of drug B with lower doses of drug A, and yet another for intermediate doses of both drugs administered together. With classic phase I trial designs, only one MTD is identified. Our new trial design allows identification of more than one MTD efficiently, within the context of a single protocol. The two drugs combined in our phase I trial are temsirolimus and bevacizumab. Bevacizumab is a monoclonal antibody targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway which is fundamental for tumor growth and metastasis. One mechanism of tumor resistance to antiangiogenic therapy is upregulation of hypoxia inducible factor 1α (HIF-1α) which mediates responses to hypoxic conditions. Temsirolimus has resulted in reduced levels of HIF-1α making this an ideal combination therapy. Dr. Donald Berry developed a trial design schema for evaluating low, intermediate and high dose levels of two drugs given in combination as illustrated in a recently published paper in Biometrics entitled “A Parallel Phase I/II Clinical Trial Design for Combination Therapies.” His trial design utilized cytotoxic chemotherapy. We adapted this design schema by incorporating greater numbers of dose levels for each drug. Additional dose levels are being examined because it has been the experience of phase I trials that targeted agents, when given in combination, are often effective at dosing levels lower than the FDA-approved dose of said drugs. A total of thirteen dose levels including representative high, intermediate and low dose levels of temsirolimus with representative high, intermediate, and low dose levels of bevacizumab will be evaluated. We hypothesize that our new trial design will facilitate identification of more than one MTD, if they exist, efficiently and within the context of a single protocol. Doses gleaned from this approach could potentially allow for a more personalized approach in dose selection from among the MTDs obtained that can be based upon a patient’s specific co-morbid conditions or anticipated toxicities.

MODIFICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RPC HETEROGENEOUS THORAX PHANTOM FOR VERIFICATION OF PROTON THERAPY TREATMENT PROCEDURES

The Radiological Physics Center (RPC) provides heterogeneous phantoms that are used to evaluate radiation treatment procedures as part of a comprehensive quality assurance program for institutions participating in clinical trials. It was hypothesized that the existing RPC heterogeneous thorax phantom can be modified to assess lung tumor proton beam therapy procedures involving patient simulation, treatment planning, and treatment delivery, and could confirm agreement between the measured dose and calculated dose within 5%/3mm with a reproducibility of 5%. The Hounsfield Units (HU) for lung equivalent materials (balsa wood and cork) was measured using a CT scanner. The relative linear stopping power (RLSP) of these materials was measured. The linear energy transfer (LET) of Gafchromic EBT2 film was analyzed utilizing parallel and perpendicular orientations in a water tank and compared to ion chamber readings. Both parallel and perpendicular orientations displayed a quenching effect underperforming the ion chamber, with the parallel orientation showing an average 31 % difference and the perpendicular showing an average of 15% difference. Two treatment plans were created that delivered the prescribed dose to the target volume, while achieving low entrance doses. Both treatment plans were designed using smeared compensators and expanded apertures, as would be utilized for a patient in the clinic. Plan 1a contained two beams that were set to orthogonal angles and a zero degree couch kick. Plan 1b utilized two beams set to 10 and 80 degrees with a 15 degree couch kick. EBT2 film and TLD were inserted and the phantom was irradiated 3 times for each plan. Both plans passed the criteria for the TLD measurements where the TLD values were within 7% of the dose calculated by Eclipse. Utilizing the 5%/3mm criteria, the 3 trial average of overall pass rate was 71% for Plan 1a. The 3 trial average for the overall pass rate was 76% for Plan 1b. The trials were then analyzed using RPC conventional lung treatment guidelines set forth by the RTOG: 5%/5mm, and an overall pass rate of 85%. Utilizing these criteria, only Plan 1b passed for all 3 trials, with an average overall pass rate of 89%.

Screening for obstructive sleep apnea on the internet: randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea is underdiagnosed. We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial of an online intervention to promote obstructive sleep apnea screening among members of an Internet weight-loss community. METHODS: Members of an Internet weight-loss community who have never been diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea or discussed the condition with their healthcare provider were randomized to intervention (online risk assessment+feedback) or control. The primary outcome was discussing obstructive sleep apnea with a healthcare provider at 12 weeks. RESULTS: Of 4700 members who were sent e-mail study announcements, 168 (97% were female, age 39.5 years [standard deviation 11.7], body mass index 30.3 [standard deviation 7.8]) were randomized to intervention (n=84) or control (n=84). Of 82 intervention subjects who completed the risk assessment, 50 (61%) were low risk and 32 (39%) were high risk for obstructive sleep apnea. Intervention subjects were more likely than control subjects to discuss obstructive sleep apnea with their healthcare provider within 12 weeks (11% [9/84] vs 2% [2/84]; P=.02; relative risk=4.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.002-20.21). The number needed to treat was 12. High-risk intervention subjects were more likely than control subjects to discuss obstructive sleep apnea with their healthcare provider (19% [6/32] vs 2% [2/84]; P=.004; relative risk=7.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.68-37.02). One high-risk intervention subject started treatment for obstructive sleep apnea. CONCLUSION: An online screening intervention is feasible and likely effective in encouraging members of an Internet weight-loss community to discuss obstructive sleep apnea with their healthcare provider.

Outcomes of safety and effectiveness in a multicenter randomized, controlled trial of whole-body hypothermia for neonatal hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy.

BACKGROUND: Whole-body hypothermia reduced the frequency of death or moderate/severe disabilities in neonates with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy in a randomized, controlled multicenter trial. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to evaluate outcomes of safety and effectiveness of hypothermia in infants up to 18 to 22 months of age. DESIGN/METHODS: A priori outcomes were evaluated between hypothermia (n = 102) and control (n = 106) groups. RESULTS: Encephalopathy attributable to causes other than hypoxia-ischemia at birth was not noted. Inotropic support (hypothermia, 59% of infants; control, 56% of infants) was similar during the 72-hour study intervention period in both groups. Need for blood transfusions (hypothermia, 24%; control, 24%), platelet transfusions (hypothermia, 20%; control, 12%), and volume expanders (hypothermia, 54%; control, 49%) was similar in the 2 groups. Among infants with persistent pulmonary hypertension (hypothermia, 25%; control, 22%), nitric-oxide use (hypothermia, 68%; control, 57%) and placement on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (hypothermia, 4%; control, 9%) was similar between the 2 groups. Non-central nervous system organ dysfunctions occurred with similar frequency in the hypothermia (74%) and control (73%) groups. Rehospitalization occurred among 27% of the infants in the hypothermia group and 42% of infants in the control group. At 18 months, the hypothermia group had 24 deaths, 19 severe disabilities, and 2 moderate disabilities, whereas the control group had 38 deaths, 25 severe disabilities, and 1 moderate disability. Growth parameters were similar between survivors. No adverse outcomes were noted among infants receiving hypothermia with transient reduction of temperature below a target of 33.5 degrees C at initiation of cooling. There was a trend in reduction of frequency of all outcomes in the hypothermia group compared with the control group in both moderate and severe encephalopathy categories. CONCLUSIONS: Although not powered to test these secondary outcomes, whole-body hypothermia in infants with encephalopathy was safe and was associated with a consistent trend for decreasing frequency of each of the components of disability.

CLINICAL TRIAL ENROLLMENT IN A MULTIDISCIPLINARY PROSTATE CANCER

Purpose: Clinical oncology trials are hampered by low accrual rates. Less than 5% of adult cancer patients are treated on a clinical trial. We aimed to evaluate clinical trial enrollment in our Multidisciplinary Prostate Cancer Clinic and to assess if a clinical trial initiative, introduced in 2006, increased our trial enrollment.Methods: Prostate cancer patients with non-metastatic disease who were seen in the clinic from 2004 to 2008 were included in the analysis. Men were categorized by whether they were seen before or after the clinical trial enrollment initiative started in 2006. The initiative included posting trial details in the clinic, educating patients about appropriate clinical trial options during the treatment recommendation discussion, and providing patients with documentation of trials offered to them. Univariate and multivariate (MVA) logistic regression analysis evaluated the impact of patient characteristics and the clinical trial initiative on clinical trial enrollment.Results: The majority of the 1,370 men were white (83%), and lived within the surrounding counties or state (69.4%). Median age was 64.2 years. Seventy-three point five percent enrolled in at least one trial and 28.5% enrolled in more than one trial. Sixty-seven percent enrolled in laboratory studies, 18% quality of life studies, 13% novel studies, and 3.7% procedural studies. On MVA, men seen in later years (p < 0.0001) were more likely to enroll in trials. The proportion of men enrolling increased from 38.9% to 84.3% (p<0.0001) after the clinical trial initiative. On MVA, older men (p < 0.0001) were less likely to enroll in clinical trials. There was a trend toward men in the high-risk group being more likely to participate in clinical trials (p = 0.056). There was a second trend for men of Hispanic, Asian, Native American and Indian decent being less likely to participate in clinical trials (p = 0.054).Conclusion: Clinical trial enrollment in the multidisciplinary clinic increased after introduction of a clinical trial initiative. Older men were less likely to enroll in trials. We speculate we achieved high enrollment rates because 1) specific trials are discussed at time of treatment recommendations, 2) we provide a letter documenting offered trials and 3) we introduce patients to the research team at the same clinic visit if they are interested in trial participation.